Jasvir Kohli vs PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK

THIS revision is directed against the order of the State Commission dated 29.04.2010 whereby the State Commission Delhi allowed the complaint filed by the appellant.

UNDISPUTED facts for the disposal of this revision petition are that the appellant filed a consumer complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party bank resulting in loss of Rs. 12,40,000/ - to the appellant. Opposite party resisted the complaint. The State Commission, however, on consideration of evidence allowed the complaint and directed thus: ''''We direct the OP to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.12,40,000/ - with interest @ 5% p.a. w.e.f. the date this amount was withdrawn from his account i.e. 14.05.2007 till date. No separate order for compensation is required to be passed because award of interest shall adequately meet the ends of justice. The complaint is, accordingly, allowed with cost of litigation of Rs.10,000/ - ''''.

The appellant being aggrieved of the amount of compensation awarded by the State Commission has preferred the First Appeal seeking enhancement of interest as also compensation and litigation expenses.

LEARNED counsel for the appellant has contended that State Commission has committed a grave error in awarding interest at a paltry rate of 5% p.a. ignoring the fact that even if the appellant had deposited the money wrongly withdrawn from his account in a Fixed Deposit Account it would have earned interest @ 9% p.a.. It is further contended that the State Commission has failed to appreciate that due to the unauthorised withdrawl of Rs.12.00 lakh from the account of the appellant, the appellant has suffered great mental trauma and harassment. Therefore, the State Commission ought to have awarded compensation of mental trauma, agony and harassment suffered by the complainant appellant and also the litigation expenses.

LEARNED counsel for the respondent has contended that the appellant has not come to the Commission with clean hands and the appeal is liable to be dismissed because the appellant has already settled his claim and received a sum of Rs.15,92,784/ - in full and final settlement of his claim. We have considered the rival contentions and perused the record.

RESPONDENT has placed on record true copy of order dated 04.12.2012 passed by the State Commission in Execution Proceedings 2010/31 which is reproduced thus: ''''04.12.2012 Present : Decree Holder in person Mr. Subhash Khurana, Manager of the J.D. Bank EX -2010/13 Manager of J.D. Bank handed over a demand draft to the Decree Holder before this Commission for an amount of Rs.15,92,784/ - in full and final satisfaction of his claim. The Decree Holder by putting an endorsement of the receipt on the order sheet has also endorsed that he is received this amount in full and final satisfaction of his claim. Execution case is therefore disposed of being settled. File be consigned to record room ''''.

ON perusal of the above noted proceedings of the Executing Court, it is seen that on 04.12.2012, the appellant has accepted a sum of Rs.15,92,784/ - in full and final settlement of his claim. Once the appellant has received the said amount in full and final settlement, he now cannot be permitted to re -agitate the matter and seek enhancement of rate of interest or compensation etc. Learned counsel for the appellant has tried to wriggle out this situation by contending that the words ''full and final settlement of his claim '' used in the proceedings dated 04.12.2012 are in respect of the claim under the Execution Proceedings. It is contended that appellant had preferred an appeal against the impugned order dated 29.04.2010 in July 2010 itself and there is nothing in the proceedings dated 04.12.2012 to suggest that the appellant agreed to withdraw his appeal. We do not agree with this contention for the reason that the first appeal filed against the order of the State Commission was dismissed for non -prosecution on 06.08.2010. The application for restoration of said appeal was moved much later in the year 2013 and the appeal was restored vide order dated 05.04.2013. From this it is clear that on 04.12.2012, no appeal of the appellant was pending. Thus there was no need for clarification that settlement between the parties was subject to outcome of the appeal. It is clear that the appellant had received the amount of Rs.15,92,784/ - in full and final settlement of his claim. Once having settled the claim, the appellant now has no right to re -agitate the matter. It appears that application for restoration of appeal was moved after the settlement with ulterior motive to entrust more money from the opposite party. In view of the discussion above, we do not find merit in the appeal. Appeal is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.